And then there's her view about whether the media influence anti-Muslim opinion:

This study claims effectively that such commentary incites violence against British Muslims. There is not one shred of evidence for this.

But she goes on to say:

Conversely, the authors make no acknowledgement of where 'truly' false and irresponsible reporting has indeed inflamed violence against a vulnerable British minority.

The way the British media reports the Middle East incites irrational hatred not just of Israel but also Jews in general.

She puts 'truly' in italics to make it clear that Muslims never suffer 'truly false' reporting (what about this or this?). But her argument is that while there is not a 'shred of evidence' that media coverage incites violence against Muslims, the British media is very responsible for inciting violence against Jews.

She says if Muslims are associated with terrorism that's because:

There is a significant terrorism problem among British Muslims.

But if people dislike Israel, it's nothing to do with the actions of the Israel and all because of false reporting.

If you believe the media has the power to incite hatred against one group, why can't it inform opinion and incite hatred against another? You can't really have it both ways.

(And as for the 'significant terrorism problem among British Muslims', it's worth remembering, as Seamus Milne reported in the Guardian, that Europol figures show 99% of the terrorist attacks in Europe over the past three years have been carried out by non-Muslims.)

Within two weeks of Phillips' piece, there was an attack on the Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Tennessee. Crusade-style crosses and the words 'Muslims go home' were scrawled on the building in red spray paint. And:

A profanity-laced hand written note was also left behind that disparaged the prophet Mohammed and even advocated the eradication of Muslims.

Yet a few days before the attack, the Channel 5 local television station ran a report entitled 'Inside Islamville: Is a Local Muslim Community Tied to TERRORISM?' Although Channel 5 admitted there was 'no evidence' of terrorist training activity, it ran the two-part report anyway.

Now it may be that the two events are completely unconnected - clearly Phillips would say they are. But it's a big coincidence given the attack happened within days of the reports being aired and given the previously good relations in the community. A spokesman for the mosque said:

'It’s unexpected...The only thing I can think of is the sensationalized reporting [by Channel 5] over Sunday and Monday. That’s the only thing I can think of. Even after 9/11 we have never had any vandalism.'

Islamophobia does not appear to be being taken seriously by the Government, the media or the general public and the situation is becoming increasingly dire - why this is remains unclear.

It could be because of a lack of understanding and recognition of the seriousness of Islamophobia; it could be because little ‘hard evidence’ exists; it could also be that anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic attitudes are becoming more socially acceptable.

Whatever the reason though, it is clear that neither Islamophobia – nor indeed anti-Semitism – are going to quickly or easily disappear.

Muslims had very positive views about the level of cohesion in their local areas; the vast majority felt that people from different backgrounds got on well together in their local area and that their local area was a place where residents respected ethnic differences between people.

Muslims also expressed strong feelings of belonging, both to their neighbourhoods and to Britain as a whole, and more than nine in ten Muslims agreed that they personally felt a part of British society.

In 2007-08 Muslims also expressed high levels of trust in institutions. They were more likely than the general population to say that they trusted Parliament and their local council and, similarly to the general population, around eight in ten Muslims trusted the police.

All of which gives a very good impression of British Muslims and how they view British society and its institutions. No wonder it was ignored...

In terms of perceptions of religious prejudice, Muslims and the general population believed there was a lot or a fair amount, and that this was up from five years ago.

97% of Muslims and 90% of the general population said there was more prejudice against Muslims compared with five years ago.

Perhaps most telling of all was the responses to a question about 'personally feeling part of British society'. 93% of Muslims agreed and 93% of all people agreed - a noteworthy similarity.

When asked about the most important values for living in Britain, 61% of Muslims said 'respect for all faiths', whereas only 33% of the population as a whole said the same. As a minority faith, Muslims would be more likely to say that is important, but the difference between those figures seems stark.

And it's worth remembering the Gallup Coexist Poll from May 2009 which showed that when asked about whether Muslims were loyal to Britain, 82% of Muslims said yes and 6% no. When the general population was asked the same question about Muslims, 36% said yes and 49% said no.

Why does the general British population have such a negative view of Muslims? According to Melanie Phillips, the drip-drip of biased, exaggerated, unpleasant or untrue media stories about Muslims doesn't even begin to explain it. But given that many millions of people read or see this stuff every day, how can it not have an effect?

There's an agenda behind highlighting stories involving Muslims far more than with people from other religions. Why, for example, were terrorists Terrance Gavan, Neil Lewington and Ian Davison given far, far less coverage in the tabloid newspapers than the case of a Muslim woman who was cleared of 'failing to pass on information that would be useful in preventing an act of terrorism'?

According to two comprehensive surveys, British Muslims feel loyal to Britain, identify with Britain and feel like they belong. They believe people get on well and and there's strong community cohesion. They exhibit a high degree of trust in parliament and local councils (more than the British population as a whole) and in the police. They believe in respect for ethnic minorites and for people from all faiths to a greater degree than the population as a whole.

Yet how often do we see the tabloid newspapers reporting on any of that?

Monday, 29 March 2010

It wasn't, in fact, a plumbing problem at Broadcasting House, but a feeble attack on online catch-up services. Although the headline focussed on the BCC, ITV and Channel 4 were also mentioned. But, as ever, it's the BBC that was the main target.

David Stephenson's report, which seemed highly influenced by the prudes at Mediawatch, feigned outrage at the accessibility of sex and violence on BBC iPlayer and the like.

The idea that five-year-olds would be watching Wallander was rather unlikely. Nonetheless, the Express was adamant:

The result is that highly impressionable children are becoming hooked on TV programmes which have unsuitable images and dialogue, leading to long-term concerns for their mental health.

The same concerns, incidentally, that some people might have about 'highly impressionable adults' reading the Express.

It goes on:

The Sunday Express watched an episode of the adult crime drama Wallander on the BBC iPlayer by simply confirming, with one click, that we were over 16...

From the ITVplayer, the Sunday Express downloaded an episode of Secret Diary Of A Call Girl, featuring adult sexual content. Again it took one click.

Now, the Express newspapers are owned by Richard Desmond's Northern and Shell company. They also own several pornographic television channels. This includes Television X, whose website needs only two clicks before 'highly impressionable children' could be seeing hardcore porn.

Indeed, starting from Google, that was significantly easier than finding far, far, far less explicit stuff on iPlayer.

Desmond also owns the Daily Star, which shows a topless page 3 girl every day and carries a very large number of adverts for phone sex in every edition.

So is the Sunday Express really in a position to complain about 'filth' elsewhere?

The Daily Mail is currently serialising the new book by Richard Littlejohn.

This is odd. Littlejohn's columns are mainly reheated Mail stories with 'hilarious' catchphrases added, and his columns are then reheated into his books, so the Mail is actually re-publishing stuff it's already published twice before.

And how's this for a very resistable trail on the front of today's paper:

Many of Littlejohn's health and safety stories are made up, or at least wildly exaggerated or nothing to do with health and safety anyway.

The section of his book published today goes through dozens of 'examples'. He very often doesn't mention the place where these things are (supposed to be) happening, so it's hard to check the veracity. Indeed, a couple I have just tried to investigate via Google just brought me back to Littlejohn...

The headline of the extract today is:

I never imagined the town hall Nazis would go quite so mad

The intro says:

Here, he explains how the diversity Nazis have ruined our town halls ...

And in his actual text:

In Britain, the elf 'n' safety nazis are banning dancing because it's dangerous.

The Mail and Littlejohn like to pretend there's a new intolerance - on health and safety, the environment and diversity, among others - and yet dismiss these people as 'Nazis'. So where's the intolerance, really?

I thought ministers had repented when it was announced that councils were being encouraged to hire 'street football coordinators' but I was wrong.

Turns out the real purpose of these new jobsworths was not to encourage kids to play football, but to ban it.

The Communities Department sent out a 53-page memo, which included a warning that 'if not planned properly, football can be divisive and trigger conflict. Passions can get high and physical contact can easily lead to confrontations'.

Moray’s Street Football project has proved to be a tremendous success since its launch in September 2006. The project aims to provide young people with the opportunity to participate in sporting activities inside a portable pitch that is quick and easy to assemble.

Traditional coaching methods are removed to provide players freedom of expression, try new skills and ultimately become better players and people.

Street Sports is fast-paced, energetic and a lot of fun.

That doesn't sound like banning it either. Indeed, that sounds like a perfectly good project for young people.

The Street Football Coordinator job in Moray had a salary of under £20,000. Yes, it's public money, but it's still sickening to hear someone who reportedly earns over £700,000 a year complaining about it. Especially when 're-writing Daily Mail stories to add more inaccuracies and smugness' is as big a non-job as any.

an attempt to set out what we know about meaningful interaction, based on research findings and the views of expert practitioners. It is aimed at local cohesion practitioners and policy planners and includes some good practice.

Hardly essential reading.

But there's no mention of 'Street Football Coordinators' or 'street football' in the whole document. Indeed, there's only five mentions of 'football' in total.

And the quote he uses was actually a comment from a youth worker involved in community cohesion projects about things that can go wrong:

'[Football can bring people together, but if not planned/organised properly can also be very divisive and trigger conflict; ie passions can get high during [the] game and physical contact/altercations during [the] game can easily lead to confrontations and fists [which] could increase the ‘them and us’ divide. Done properly, [this needs: an] assessment whether the two groups are ready to compete, ie no recent scores to settle; preparation work with both groups; [seeing] football [as] part of a wider intervention; staff/volunteers/spectators who support teams [and] encourage positive attitudes, not just about thrashing your opponent on the pitch.' (Youth Worker, written comment)

But Littejohn never makes this stuff up. Oh no:

Already some seaside councils have scrapped donkey rides on the grounds of animal cruelty and Punch and Judy because it glorifies domestic violence.

As for the Punch and Judy claim, well, that's also nonsense. A silly Lib Dem Councillor in Colchester tried to get a Punch and Judy performer to tone down the slapstick. When he included a likeness of her in his show, she went on a personal mission to try to ban Punch and Judy.

Arts & Leisure Committee voted on the motion to put Mr. Punch on the banned list the Chair of the committee drew one supporting vote, the oppostion parties united to oppose it and - most tellingly - Councillor Jenny Stevens own political colleagues abstained leaving her embarrassingly exposed.

Nevertheless the myth that Mr. Punch had been 'banned' by the authorities for not being politically correct duly entered contemporary folklore.

Indeed, it has.

If there are any other examples of Littlejohn 'making it up' in today's article, please do leave details in the comments.

British students are being squeezed out of places at university by Europeans, it emerged yesterday.

Hmm, are they really?

Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show that the number of students from the European Union increased by almost five per cent last year to 118,000...

Altogether, 588,689 people applied for undergraduate courses, but more than 100,000 failed to get in.

See what she did there? An increase of foreign students to over 100,000 and a similar number of failed applications and therefore one must be the result of the other.

Unfortunately, Holland's grasp of statistics is woeful, either through ignorance or through wilfully trying to create an immigration scare.

For a start, the number of failed applications must include foreign students but she doesn't seem to take account of that.

Then there's that 118,000 figure. The real figure is actually 117,660 but that is the total number of EU students (excluding UK and Ireland) in higher education in the UK in 2009.

But why is she comparing that with the number of new and/or failed applications? That's a meaningless and misleading comparison.

Out of a total student body of 2,396,050, that figure of 117,660 amounts to 4.9%. Add in the 251,310 students from the rest of the world and that means only 15.4% of uni students are not domiciled in the UK or Ireland.

Now let's take her figure of 588,689 applications. This is actually a 2008 figure so not only is she not comparing like with like, but she's not even using figures from the same year.

She has been subjected to allegations of alcoholism which she and husband Richard Madeley have always furiously denied.

But these pictures of a tipsy-looking Judy Finnigan are certainly not going to do her any favours or convince anyone that she's not partial to a drink or two.

This nasty little article suffered the same fate as the Sun one, disappearing from the website before the end of the day.

Today's Mail article is, presumably, a way of correcting the record without the Mail having to actually apologise. Indeed, they can pretend it was nothing to do with them:

But as she was photographed emerging, looking bleary-eyed and linking arms with her husband and daughter, everyone assumed the worse.

'Everyone'? Really? Or just some vile hacks with little journalistic talent looking to invent a story around a pap shot?

Until now, Judy's attitude, as it was with her depression, her miscarriage and her hysterectomy, has been to grin and get on with the job.

But this time it is different: the insinuation that she needed help walking because of an ongoing alcohol battle has been too much to bear.

Yes, how dare people 'insinuate' such a thing. The Mail must be appalled at such behaviour...

Richard, her loyal husband, is so furious about the false rumours that he decided to speak out to the Mail in a bid to show people just how wrong the stories are.

So when the Mail says it 'can reveal' the truth, and that Richard is speaking out 'to the Mail', they're covering the fact they are almost certainly doing this to avoid any further trouble over the original article.

Richard goes on to explain how they did go for lunch and yes, Judy had a glass-and-a-half of wine, but:

'Judy has ruptured the anterior cruciate ligaments in both her knees, and, like most people with this condition, appreciates an arm or rail going up or down steps or curbs.

'Crude comments were also written about her eyes. Again, for the record, Judy is recovering from not one, but two, operations in recent weeks on her right eye.

The Mail even include this break-out quote, just so no-one misses their furious back-tracking:

The original articles were full of spite and bile and completely bereft of anything resembling news. The Mail has given space to one of the people involved and pretended to be above it all, despite having gleefully poured fuel on the fire in the first place.

It now admits the original story was 'wrong' but appears to be getting away with actually apologising for it. No word from the Sun yet, but they look like getting away with it - deleting the story and acting like it never happened - too.

Friday, 26 March 2010

This would would seem to suggest that Peter Andre and ex-wife Jordan had had a 'bust-up' in a 'nightclub', where one of them revealed their 'hidden feelings' in an 'astonishing rant'. The pictures have been deliberately selected to show the two looking angry and weary at night.

Bosses at the local Radio City station were eager to see the look on Peter’s face when the curtain went up.

But when Peter and his management found out about the stunt they vowed to turn away anyone who looked like Kate at the door.

So a radio station tried to get a bit of free publicity by pulling a stunt where they would get Jordan look-a-likes into a Andre gig and his management stopped it.

That's it.

Where is the 'astonishing rant'?

Where is the 'bust-up' between Andre and Jordan, when she actually hasn't said or done anything to do with this 'story'?

And since when is the Liverpool Philharmonic Hall called a 'nightclub'?

Given that all these stories are about a named person, the chances of any third-party complaint to the PCC getting anywhere are slim-to-none. Yet surely they have to stop a paper writing such obviously misleading headlines, designed to sell papers (it's working) through deliberate lying.

Thursday, 25 March 2010

Oh, and in Peterborough, fishermen have produced evidence that Eastern European immigrants are catching swans and eating them - a story dismissed originally as an 'urban myth'.

You couldn't make it up.

Except, of course, he could. In fact, 'you couldn't make it up' seems to be the way he's ends a story where he has done just that.

What 'evidence' is he talking about?

Presumably he's referring to the story published in the Mail a few days ago, where some very general claims were made (mainly about fish) with absolutely no hard evidence produced to back them up. If it's as common a problem as the Mail makes out, you'd think there might be photographic proof at least.

Over the past week or so the Express has had front pages stories about foreigners taking your jobs (twice), your home and now, your money.

You'd almost think the Express has some kind of anti-immigrant agenda...

For this story, the Express is upset that the High Court Judgment has ruled a Portuguese man who came to the UK and worked for four years until being incapacitated following an accident in his work place is entitled to child benefit for his children in Portugal.

The Express considered this a 'scandal', a 'monstrous injustice' and an 'unacceptable burden'. The editorial ranted:

the message goes out to the indolent classes across the EU that Britain is the place to be.

A man works for four years before being seriously injured, and yet is dismissed as 'indolent'? Charming.

The paper's daily phone poll asked 'Should benefits to immigrants be stopped?' The result won't be a surprise.

The EU rules that Mr Ruas has relied on also benefit the 1.5 million UK workers who live outside the UK and elsewhere in the EU.

The EU rules say that where parents go abroad to work and children stay behind, it should be the country in which the parents are working that should pay child benefit.

Up to 1.5million Brits working in the EU may be benefiting from such reciprocal social security agreements as the man in this case?

That figure came from Angela Eagle, Minister of State for Pensions and Ageing Society, in a House of Commons debate in December 2009 (column 525).

She said:

However, we are bound by EU reciprocal laws on social security that enable the 1.5 million UK citizens who live and work in the European Union to benefit in turn from local arrangements in the countries in which they work.

If you are in another EEA country and you are employed or self-employed; and you are insured under that country's insurance scheme you can usually get the children's allowance paid by that country. You can get it even if your child stays, or your children stay, in the UK.

this study does not provide any evidence that aspirin, anti-inflammatory drugs or paracetamol reduces the risk of hormone-related cancers such as breast or ovarian cancer.

This study did not examine cancer outcomes in these women.

Oh.

And as for the presentation of the research:

Withstanding the headline, the Daily Express generally gave an accurate representation of this research by discussing how regular use of aspirin was associated with lower oestrogen levels, and this in turn may be related to risk of cancer.

It is not clear where The Sun's claim that aspirin can cut the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer by up to 10% originated. The Sun also did not mention that regular aspirin use is associated with the risk of serious side effects such as internal bleeding.

Neither newspaper mentioned that this was a cross-sectional analysis, and so cannot prove that current painkiller-use is the cause of current hormone levels.

So the Express headline was exaggerated and then stuck on the front page, while the Sun seems to have exaggerated in other ways.

Either way: it's eye-catching but unsubstantiated reporting about cancer. As usual.

Unprotected sex, especially with casual partners, is the biggest risk for syphilis. Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. It is important that people avoid high risk sexual behaviours and practise safe sex to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections.

Which sounds like unprotected sex is being blamed for the rise. Not Facebook.

In actuality, the Daily Mail never spoke to the RSPCA and instead lifted the copy from a regional paper (the Peterborough Evening Telegragh) - which in turn had misquoted the [RSPCA's] Animal Welfare Officer.

And from the RSPCA statement:

To date the RSPCA has not received sufficient evidence that any particular person or group of people is responsible for the death of swans in this area.

Our inspectors and animal welfare officers have investigated all allegations, but at this time there is nothing to suggest the deaths are connected or deliberate.

An overhead power cable, other preditors and abandoned litter can all, sadly, be lethal to swans and other wildlife.

But since when does the Mail let the evidence get in the way of demonising immigrants?

This week there'll be plenty of times when people who aren't immigrants will be up in the dock for criminal damage - and worse - but will they get reported on the front page of the Express? I really doubt it.

So the Daily Mail Reporter dutifully goes through all the scary statistics and adds a quote from the microbiologist who did the research:

Dr Joseph Levin, microbiologist from the University of Tel Aviv, said: 'The levels of disease-causing bacteria found in the bins are at a level that I would consider to be dangerous, especially to those with a weakened immune system, such as the elderly or young babies'.

Binifresh is the leader in automatic hygiene for wheelie bins. After 3 years of research and development Binifresh has released its first product, an automatic hygiene and odor control device that fits easily and securely to your wheelie bin, altogether creating a cleaner, healthier more comfortable environment for all.

So a company that sells a product (£14.98 plus £2.98 for refills) that claims to make bins cleaner and healthier produces research saying bins aren't clean and healthy.

Imagine that.

And the Mail, with their weird bin obsession, are only too happy to give them a free advert.

In its purest form, a newspaper consists of a collection of facts which, in controlled circumstances, can actively improve knowledge.

Unfortunately, facts are expensive, so to save costs and drive up sales, unscrupulous dealers often "cut" the basic contents with cheaper material, such as wild opinion, bullshit, empty hysteria, reheated press releases, advertorial padding and photographs of Lady Gaga with her bum hanging out.

The hapless user has little or no concept of the toxicity of the end product: they digest the contents in good faith, only to pay the price later when they find themselves raging incoherently in pubs, or – increasingly – on internet messageboards.

An article on 7 October suggested that Nancy Jones, Keith Floyd's eldest daughter, had turned up unannounced at his wake and that there was reason to doubt her paternity. In fact, Ms Jones' existence was well known to Mr Floyd and the family and she was an invited guest. We apologise for any distress caused.

Only 'suggested'? Really?

The original headline 'Mourners at Keith Floyd's funeral stunned by his 'secret love child'' is a little more than a suggestion.

The Sun were, at least, upfront in admitting their original story had 'wrongly stated' the claims. Why did the Standard and Mail pretend they had only 'suggested' the lies?

The paper's cast-iron (ahem) evidence includes a blue rosette worn by a cheat in an episode of The Basil Brush Show that was first broadcast in 2004. Yes, really.

They also blame the BBC for some footage of David Cameron straightening his hair before going live on TV, but conveniently forget to say it was Sky wot filmed it.

The second post is about the Sun's campaign on new tabloid bête noire 'meow meow'. The Sun have claimed their coverage has caused the rules on what schools can do when confiscating the drug to be changed. Alas, it appears the guidance is the same as it's always been.

The Government has been ordered to drop two adverts based on nursery rhymes which exaggerated the risks of so-called 'global warming'.

...the Advertising Standards Agency said they amounted to scaremongering and didn't reflect the growing scepticism over claims that the planet is heating up.

Of course, that's only half the story. The ASA investigated five ads and cleared three of them. Generally, it did not find the ads in breach on truthfulness, substantiation or environmental claims. The ASA also ruled the ads did not breach their clauses on 'distress' so they didn't actually say they 'amounted to scaremongering'.

Littlejohn then repeats all his usual points:

Despite the fact that the world has actually got cooler this century, mounting evidence that 'climate change' is a myth, and the revelation that alleged 'experts' in the field have been fiddling the figures to fit their theories, the hysteria goes on.

It's an interesting use of the word 'fact'.

Littlejohn doesn't seem to have read the ASA judgment. Because it says:

The ASA understood that, amongst the majority of scientists who worked in the field of climate research globally, there was a consensus that human activity was contributing to upward temperature trends globally and would continue to do so unless steps were taken by the worlds' governments to reduce GHG emissions, including CO2.

We concluded that, at the time the ads were published, there was not a significant division of informed scientific opinion on the issue amongst the world's climate scientists.

It may just be that Littlejohn is not considered in the 'informed scientific opinion' category.

So, it's not quite as clear cut as Littlejohn tries to imply, if you can imagine such a thing. He doesn't even mention the three adverts that were cleared.

But the adverts updated nursery rhymes to make their point. So Littlejohn says:

It also got me wondering what other nursery rhymes could be updated ...

Wee Willie Winkie runs through the town, Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown.

Trying escape the lynch mob who think he's a paedophile.

When they catch him they'll string him up, the dirty nonce.

And later this:

George Porgie, pudding and pie, Kissed the girls and made them cry,

Now he's on the sexual offenders' register.

And on health we get this:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

So they took him to an NHS hospital, where he caught MRSA and died.

And this:

Three blind mice, three blind mice, See how they run, see how they run.

This ward's been crawling with mice since the NHS contracted out the cleaning.

Could that last line sound any more like he just isn't trying at all?

Of course, 'the foreigners' cop it too:

Doctor Foster went to Gloucester,

But when he got there

He found they'd already given the job to a foreign GP who can't speak English.

And:

As I was going to St Ives, I met a man with seven wives.

He said he'd come from Somalia,

And was now living on benefits in a £2.5 million townhouse in Kensington.

He runs through every one of his usual targets - Muslims, single mums, gay men, CSOs, equality, diversity - and fails to come up with a single new or interesting thing to say about any of them. He even references the foot-and-mouth outbreak which happened either three or nine years ago, depending on how generous you feel.